RianOssendorp11T

02/11/2015

TheRiverSouteyranStudy
Aim:
TocomparetheriverSouteyrantoaspectsofBradshawModel

Hypothesis:
Channeldischargeincreasesdownstream.

Expectations:
Channel width and depth should increase downstream as should velocity, as more
water is added there is more energy which contributes to the increasein hydraulic
actionandabrasionasithasmorepowertocarryload.

Methodology:
Tocollectourdata,wesetoutto8differentsites.Wedecidedtovisit8differentsites
as it meant that the data wecollect wasspreadoutevenly over the rivercreating a
good representation of the river. From the 3 different sample methods (random,
systematic and stratified) we used the systematic method as it is an easy way to
sampleandiswelldistributed

Foreachsitewehadtotest7differenthypotheses:

Crosssectionalarea
To find out the cross sectional area of a site you have to multiplythedepthbythe
width of the site. Firstly we measured the width. To do this we stretched a tape
measure across one side of the river bank to the other, just abovethe water level.
We then noted down the amount of m on the results table, and kept the tape
measure inplace. Secondly wemeasuredthe depth.Todothisweputa metreruler
intothe water until it touchedthebottom.At5evenlyspacedpointsacrossonebank
side tothe other.Wereadof the level ofwaterin cmandthenconvertedthevalues
inminthetable.

Evaluation
A problem which we encountered during the study was that we would roughly
estimating where we wereplacing therulerto measure depth,instead ofaccurately
spacing it out. Additionally when placing the ruler into the water to measure the
depth, therulerplacedhorizontallyagainst thestreamwas anobstaclesothewater
level would rise, making the results inaccurate. To prevent this we should have
placed the ruler verticallyagainst thestreamdecreasingtheobstaclesize.Moreover
when using the tape measure to measure the width, it was slightly floppy and not
straight andtheirforthewidthtendedtobelargerthanwhatitactuallywas,makingit
inaccurate.Toimproveuponthiswecoulduseharderrulers.

RianOssendorp11T
02/11/2015

Velocity
To measure the velocity we quite simply had to place a "flow meter" in the water
about halfway from the bottom ofthe surface. Assoon as the propellerthat turning
we started the timer andtimed how many seconds it took for the propeller toreach
the stand.Wethen noted down the resultin the table. We thenusedagraphtosee
athowmanym/stheriverwasflowing.

Evaluation
An error which we did not consider at the time was that we should take
measurements at several points across the site, instead of just one. Additionally it
was slightly subjective as we were most likely to place it at a point in the stream
wherethevelocitywasvisiblyhigher.

Discharge
Thedischarge is similarto the crosssectionalareaasitalso requiresthewidthand
depth measurementsalong withthevelocity. Sotofigureoutthedischargeyouhave
tomultiplythecrosssectionalareabythevelocity.Notedowntheanswerincumecs.

Evaluation
Just like already explained at the cross sectional area and velocity hypotheses
evaluation,therewereslighterrorsmakingtheresultslessreliable.

Gradient
Finding thegradientis quiteadifficultjob.Firstlywehadtomeasure3minastraight
line upstream from where we took our survey recordings. Then we had to place a
ranging pole at either endof the 3m line.Then westoodnext to one oftheranging
poles and usedaclinometerwhicharmwelinedupwiththebottomofaredbandon
the pole and releasedthetrigger.Lookingalongthe sightwe angled theclinometer
sothatthesightnotchattheendwas inlinewiththecorrespondingline.Thenwelet
gothe trigger so thattheclinometerswang,untilitcametoahalt.Wefinallypressed
downthetriggeronefinaltimeandrecordedtheangleindegrees.

Evaluation
For the first few sights when we had to note downthe gradientwe didnot usethe
apparatus andjustnoteditdown anestimate.Alsowhenpointingtheclinometerthe
angles weren't fullyaccurate as onepolewas stuckdeeper intothegroundthan the
other,andvisuallyitwashardtopointpreciselyattheline.

RianOssendorp11T
02/11/2015

Bedloadsize
To note the bedload size wesimply had to pickup5 stonesfromtheriverbed. We
compared the shape of thepebbleto the onesshown on thepebbleboardprovided
ranging from 6 categories. We also used a calliper to measure the size and noted
thatdowninthetable.

Evaluation
Whenpickingup therocksfromtheriverbed,wetendtochoselargerrocksoverthe
smaller rocks as they were easier to pick up, and seen as more significant.
Additionally when comparing the stones to the cailloux classification is was very
subjective,asonlyonepersondecided.Toimprovethisslightlywecouldaskseveral
people to compare the stones to theclassification and get a democratic opinion on
whichcategorythestonebelongedto.

Rivervalleychanges
To discover any changes in the river valley there wasn't really a technique which
required equipment. It was mainly based upon visual opinion. We could sketch a
picture for each of the sitesto showifthestreamhad a vshaped valley, oraflood
plainetc.

Evaluation
This test was very subjective as it purely visual and we had no evidencewhatthe
sitemightlooklikeatadifferenttimeoftheyear.

Riverqualityvariation
Tofind outthe river quality wedid something calledthe "kick test", andnoteddown
the
invertebratesfoundin the water. Firstlyfor the"kicktest" weplacedanetatthe
bottom of the river bed, against the stream of the river. Then we stamped on the
groundin front ofthenet(for1minute)kickingupanysand,invertebrates androcks.
We emptied the net into a tray and using pipettes and spoons we took out any
invertebrates and placed themin a square grid. We then used a classificationsheet
to discoverwhatinvertebrates wefound, noted down theirBMVPscores andtallied
uptheamounts.

Evaluation
Due totimeconstrictionswecouldonlyspend1minutekickingtheground,andtobe
honest our group only spent30 seconds kickingthe ground. Additionally dueto the
kicking some of the invertebrates might have damaged/affected their looks, and
when classifying the invertebratesmanystudents justwentoflookscomparingthem
to thepictureinstead offollowingtheguideontheback.Alsoduetotimerestrictions
wedidnothavealotoftimetosearchthetraythroughproperly.

RianOssendorp11T
02/11/2015

DataPresentation
*Seecrosssectionalgraphsongraphpaper*

Analysis
The reason why I chose to create a cross sectional graph is because it iseasy to
make as it only requires to basic measurementswidth anddepth. Also readingthe
graph is very easy as it clearly displays what the shape bank sides andriverbed.
Additionallythegraph'sareeasilycomparable.

The downfall of this method of presenting data is that it only shows us the cross
sectionof theriveratthatmomentoftime,anditishighlysusceptibletoweatherand
othergeologicalconditions.

For site 3 we can see that the lowest depth (0.25m) and the width (2m) is quite
small, as we would expect as it is at the top of the stream. The size of the cross
sectionincreases at size 5asthe lowestdepthis0.45mbutthewidthdoesincrease
significantlytoabout3.5metres.Thisiswiderthansize5meaningthatitagreeswith
our hypotheses. Finally at site 8 we can observe that the lowest depth is 0.25
metres. Thelength is slightly inconclusive asonthegraphitdoesnotcurveuptofor
abank.Thisismostlikelyjustamistakeonmypartsoitisananomaly.

Conclusion
In conclusion. Our hypothesesstatesthatchanneldischargeincreasesdownstream.
From our results and our crosssectionalgraphswe can seethat this iscorrect. As
on the graphs the back sides became deeper, meaning that there must be higher
speed. Also in our expectations we thought that "Channel width and depth should
increase downstream as should velocity, as more water is added there is more
energy which contributes to the increase in hydraulic action and abrasion as it has
morepowertocarryload".Thisisalsocorrectasfromourgraphswecantellthatthe
widthhasincreasedalthoughthedepthinsite5isslightlydeeperthanatsite8.

Evaluation
After completing the test, I can now look back and reflect what I could have done
better personally and what the team could have done better. Personally I should
have tried out measuring the gradient as I did nottrythat.As a teamI feel like we
workedverywell and cooperated efficiently.A point whichIwouldliketomentionis
the fact thateverystudentwantedtocompleteadifferentjobeachtime,itmeantthat
the results were inconsistent, asoneperson does notmeasuresomething thesame
way someone measures something. Some general factors whichobscuredusfrom
completing allthesitesincludethefactthatwecouldnotvisitpartsoftheriverdueto
healthand safety regulations,andprivatelandownership.Additionallytimepressure

RianOssendorp11T
02/11/2015

would have not allowed us the time todo so.Finally another factor which wecould
not take into consideration was that the results we took were only relevant to
momentoftime.Duringdifferentseasonsresultswouldmostlikelyvary.